There's a certain amount of chat here, including mine, without the benefit of hard information. I'd think the key question is whether Shreyas's father has access to someone with sound up-to-date knowledge of immigration law who can assess the situation on the basis of the facts and take a considered view. If not then, frankly, he needs to find one - and, given the high-profile nature of his case, that shouldn't be too difficult.

Sorry to be gloomy here. Many people are trying to do the right thing by Shreyas (& family). Indeed, the ECF, MPs, and chess journalists are doing the right thing, in my opinion.

BUT time is fast running out, if I've understood things correctly. And it's the 'silly season', with politicians away and the media dozing. Hence, very hard to exercise sufficient leverage with the time and resources to hand. Moreover, far, far more wrenching (and arguably more deserving) cases have tried and failed to budge the Home Office's intransigence in these matters. We may no longer have a formal "hostile environment" policy in play, though most people caught up in the process will scarcely notice any change. I fear that Family Shreyas Royal will simply be numbered among the 'fallen' in the UK's forlorn battle to 'take back control'

There's a certain amount of chat here, including mine, without the benefit of hard information. I'd think the key question is whether Shreyas's father has access to someone with sound up-to-date knowledge of immigration law who can assess the situation on the basis of the facts and take a considered view. If not then, frankly, he needs to find one - and, given the high-profile nature of his case, that shouldn't be too difficult.

He has a barrister to whom chess people, including me, have provided information.

Sorry to be gloomy here. Many people are trying to do the right thing by Shreyas (& family). Indeed, the ECF, MPs, and chess journalists are doing the right thing, in my opinion.

BUT time is fast running out, if I've understood things correctly. And it's the 'silly season', with politicians away and the media dozing. Hence, very hard to exercise sufficient leverage with the time and resources to hand. Moreover, far, far more wrenching (and arguably more deserving) cases have tried and failed to budge the Home Office's intransigence in these matters. We may no longer have a formal "hostile environment" policy in play, though most people caught up in the process will scarcely notice any change. I fear that Family Shreyas Royal will simply be numbered among the 'fallen' in the UK's forlorn battle to 'take back control'

There have been news items in the past few days about Shreyas in the Times, Guardian, BBC website, the i, Metro, and Daily Mail, as well as several Indian papers which are naturally focusing on the Anand interview. All these can be easily verified on Google.
Seems nothing lately in the Telegraph news section, nothing in the Evening Standard (editor chess fan George Osborne).

In general,a pretty reasonable turnout. So I can't agree at all with media dozing

So well, in fact, that I've received two emails this morning from non-playing friends, asking if I know about him. If the case is cutting through to the general public (my sample of two is a straw in that wind), then Shreyas has a chance, albeit a small chance still

It seems that Shreyas is gaining definite momentum, judged by the burgeoning number of supportive Twitter posts. A Times editorial and a New York Times story today as well. I guess there might be a critical point in such cases where the bureaucracy starts to get worried and considers an exit strategy, but I don't know how close or how distant that is.

The Times today carries a news piece, then the following Leader article. The news piece is cool on Shreyas's prospects, referring to "a brick wall" in the Home Office. The Leader is aggressively supportive though. So much for the formal journalism: 'below the line' comments are far less encouraging. There, the dominant views are: a) he's really Indian, not British; and b) it's only chess - so what. Hhmm...

Boy to Square One

Britain’s most remarkable chess prodigy should be allowed to stay

This country’s best chess prospect in a generation is nine years old. He first saw a chess board when he was five, and his mother was worried that he was spending so much time swimming and playing tennis that not enough was left to expand his mind. Four years later, Shreyas Royal has a glittering chess career ahead of him and only one cloud on his horizon. Next month he will have to go to live in India with his family because his father’s work visa has expired. Shreyas doesn’t want to go. He has learnt all his chess here and has won medals for what he regards as his country. The Home Office admits that he shows “immense promise” but insists there is no way within the rules to let him stay. Privately, senior figures are worried that if an exception were made in this high-profile case it would set a precedent exploited by others.

Any precedent set by letting Shreyas stay would apply only to other people with prodigious talents. These are people whom a sane immigration policy would seek to attract anyway. If this is not an argument the Home Office wishes to consider it should address another: Shreyas’s family is being sent back to India because his father, Jitendra Singh, does not earn more than £120,000 a year. If he did, his visa could be renewed. Yet the threshold is arbitrary. Even though Mr Singh’s salary does not surpass it, he is well-paid and highly qualified as an IT professional. While he and his family face a forced return to India, visas are being granted to other South Asian men, some of them rapists under British law, over the objections of young women forced to marry them.

Shreyas’s ambition is to be the youngest world chess champion in history, and a British one at that. The computer may say no. A reasonable person would interpret the rules rather than enforce them blindly, and say yes.

While he and his family face a forced return to India, visas are being granted to other South Asian men, some of them rapists under British law, over the objections of young women forced to marry them.

True, and a separate outrage, but in itself irrelevant. For so long as the political order supported by The Times retains its power, that will not change.

It seems that Shreyas is gaining definite momentum, judged by the burgeoning number of supportive Twitter posts. A Times editorial and a New York Times story today as well. I guess there might be a critical point in such cases where the bureaucracy starts to get worried and considers an exit strategy, but I don't know how close or how distant that is.

Yes but the media coverage will ebb away as 'yesterday's news' unless there are further developments - think of the furore, which has now died out, over funding for Casual Chess - and bureaucracy is well used to weathering these short storms. It's the prolonged campaigns that unsettle.

On the positive side, the CBI is today urging that numerical immigration targets be scrapped and preference given to those who can positively contribute to the economy - see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45136390 - although the Home Office response (surprise, surprise) was that it had no plans to scrap targets.

Without really knowing anything about immigration laws, I have no reason to doubt that this is a deserving individual and family, and my first reaction was to be pleased. But you have to wonder a little.

You occasionally hear of proud parents picking up their winnings from Ladbrokes having bet on their son playing football for England, at odds of 100/1. Which presumably means that Ladbrokes, knowing virtually nothing about the lad, will offer those odds and expect to make money. I wonder what odds you could get on Shreyas becoming world chess champion.

I'm also struggling to think of any other field in which someone of that age could qualify as a national asset.

And if this is a visa extension, what happens when it runs out? It's an awful lot of pressure on one so young if he still has to be a chess prodigy or his family will be deported. Do the rest of the family all have to leave when he is 18?